Shootings demonstrate need for gun control, USCCB says

[LeafByNiggle]

DENNYINMI:

Guns are not an ABSOLUTE right when they intrude on the right to life of others, which is an inalienable right!~The boat sailed for the United States with the deaths of the children in a Connecticut classroom.
Mass killings/shootings are the new normal. The answer is always the same. “Thoughts and Prayers”.

Guns are an absolute right, inherent and protected by the constitution.

For the hundredth time, the constitution is not absolute, so it cannot be used to justify why something is absolute. At most, it can be used to show that a bunch of men two centuries ago may have thought it was absolute and inherent. But they were wrong if they thought so.

 

[JonNC]

For the hundredth time, the constitution is not absolute, so it cannot be used to justify why something is absolute. At most, it can be used to show that a bunch of men two centuries ago may have thought it was absolute and inherent. But they were wrong if they thought so.

The right to keep and bear arms is absolutely a right! It is inherent as part of the right of self defense.
All those men did was affirm it and protect it in the constitution.
What is not absolute is government power to end that If one wants a civil war, try to do away with it.

There is a baseline, and that is the individual, inherent right to the tools (arms) necessary for self defense and working in cooperation with other individuals (the militia) to defend against tyranny.
It is an inherent, individual, human and civil right

 

[LeafByNiggle]

LeafByNiggle:

For the hundredth time, the constitution is not absolute, so it cannot be used to justify why something is absolute. At most, it can be used to show that a bunch of men two centuries ago may have thought it was absolute and inherent. But they were wrong if they thought so.

The right to keep and bear arms is absolutely a right! It is inherent as part of the right of self defense.

Your interpretation of the right of self defense is faulty. Obviously the US Catholic bishops do not share your interpretation or they would not be calling for gun control.

All those men did was affirm it and protect it in the constitution.

As I said, they were wrong if they thought they were affirming an inherent right. (I’m not sure they did think they were affirming an inherent right, but it doesn’t matter since I do not look to those men for my moral guidance.)

 

[JonNC]

Your interpretation of the right of self defense is faulty. Obviously the US Catholic bishops do not share your interpretation or they would not be calling for gun control.

They are welcome to theirs. I have mine. And I think history, as reviewed in the Heller decision supports mine.

As I said, they were wrong if they thought they were affirming an inherent right. (I’m not sure they did think they were affirming an inherent right, but it doesn’t matter since I do not look to those men for my moral guidance.)

Oh, they did, and they were absolutely correct

 

[LeafByNiggle]

LeafByNiggle:

Your interpretation of the right of self defense is faulty. Obviously the US Catholic bishops do not share your interpretation or they would not be calling for gun control.

They are welcome to theirs. I have mine. And I think history, as reviewed in the Heller decision supports mine.

Absolutely not! The Heller decision did not rule on the question of whether the right to keep and bear arms was an inherent right. It was a Supreme Court ruling strictly on th question of the meaning of the second amendment - a strictly legal question. The question of the inherency of this right was not at stake.

As for history supporting your interpretation, inherent rights are not a popularity contest. A whole nation could agree that this is an inherent right and they could still be wrong. I don’t think you are ever going to find out for sure if you are correct until you meet your maker - the author of all inherent rights.

 

[Elf01]

inherent rights are not a popularity contest.

Indeed, otherwise abortion and gay marriage would be inherent rights.

 

[JonNC]

Absolutely not! The Heller decision did not rule on the question of whether the right to keep and bear arms was an inherent right. It was a Supreme Court ruling strictly on th question of the meaning of the second amendment - a strictly legal question. The question of the inherency of this right was not at stake.

Incorrect. Heller is clear:
c. Meaning of the Operative Clause. Putting all of these textual elements together, we find that they guaran- tee the individual right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation. This meaning is strongly confirmed by the historical background of the Second Amendment. We look to this because it has always been widely under- stood that the Second Amendment, like the First and Fourth Amendments, codified a pre-existing right. The very text of the Second Amendment implicitly recognizes the pre-existence of the right and declares only that it “shall not be infringed.” As we said in United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542, 553 (1876), “[t]his is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The Second amendment declares that it shall not be infringed . . . .”16
Heller reiterates that the Court recognized this as a pre-existing right that the 2nd only protects it. The constitution does not create rights because rights do not come from people or government. All rights, including the right to arms, are antecedent to government

https://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/06/07-290.pdf

 

[JonNC]

LeafByNiggle:

inherent rights are not a popularity contest.

Indeed, otherwise abortion and gay marriage would be inherent rights.

Actually, the two decisions are different.
Gay “marriage” has existed long before the Court decision, at least in certain groups. One could go to a Universal Unitarian church and have a same gender "marriage " long before the Court decision. What the Court did was codify it.

Abortion differs in that the Court granted a “right” to kill human beings. This is a contradiction because no one possesses a right, inherent or historically, to kill others except in self defense.

 

[jfz178]

This is an open note to all the pro-gun people on this thread. I am not talking to the rest of you. The anti-gun posters here are TROLLS. They try to poke intellectual holes in good reasoned arguments and keep the argument stirred up, but they offer no concrete solutions of their own. You ask them for specifics and they variously digress, fall back on tired old arguments, take off in different directions or just fold. Debating them is a waste of our time, because they have nothing but complaints. When we do get a proposal out of them, it crumbles as soon as we present the facts and they head off in a different direction. They actually rejoice in reports and statistics of people killed by guns because it supports their hoplophobic narrative.

I suggest we stop feeding the trolls. It is exactly what they want and a waste of our time. Remember that 2/3 of the states are shall issue, with more being added all the time. Also, 2/3 of the states are Republican controlled. SCOTUS is conservative-leaning and will get more so and stay that way for a long time. In the last 20 years, we have been steadily gaining ground in the legislatures and the courts. Yet guess what? Gun crime is steadily declining!

All these trolls can do is argue. They are powerless. Spend your precious time becoming a gun rights activist, not wasting time on the topic here. If you must post here, post what all this trolling has inspired you to do.

This thread has inspired me to donate more to the NRA-ILA, the SAF and the VCDL. I will take part in VCDL Lobby on the 15th, where over 1,000 of us will clog the halls of the state office building, all legally open-carrying guns and wearing bright orange “Guns Save Lives” buttons. We split up into teams and visit every legislator’s office, talk to them and drop off the VCDL Voting Guide. It is glorious! Find something like that in your state and DO IT. BTW, the anti-gun people show up to Lobby Day with about two dozen people, mostly older ladies, and that’s it. Lame!

This thread has also inspired me to buy my first AR-15, a Colt 6920, a new handgun and lot of ammo. So if the anti-gunners on this thread think they are scoring points, it has backfired where I am concerned. A friend of mine in the gun industry said Obama was the best gun salesman the industry ever had. Trolls like we find here are #2 in my book. I will no longer argue with their traitorous betrayals of the Constitution. I will let them inspire me to action.

They will not doubt try to shame me here, but I have decided their opinions are completely invalid and mean nothing to me. I encourage you to take the same stance.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

The anti-gun posters here are TROLLS.

We are supposed to discuss the issues, not other posters.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

"This meaning is strongly confirmed by the historical background of the Second Amendment. We look to this because it has always been widely under- stood that the Second Amendment, like the First and Fourth Amendments, **codified a pre-existing right. The very text of the Second Amendment implicitly recognizes the pre-existence of the right and declares only that it “shall not be infringed.”

I stand corrected on that point. I still think they were wrong in saying it is an inherent right. They are entitled to their opinion. That is all.

 

[jfz178]

OK, the issue is that the comments from the anti-gun posters here amounts to trolling. Better?

 

[Elf01]

What is your solution to reducing gun violence?

 

[jfz178]

Already stated about 30 posts ago. Yes, my solutions are expensive and difficult. Any solution to this problem would be. But they would work.

Whereas Leaf has stated he doesn’t have a solution. Solutions are not his area of expertise.

 

[Elf01]

Is this the post you mentioned?

 

[upant]

The anti-gun posters here are TROLLS.

 

[DENNYINMI]

No rights are absolute. Everything must be measured through the filter of safety and the lens of that which could cause harm. The rhetoric of some underground mechanism that longs to stifle the responsible gun owner into relinquishing his gun is absurd and every slogan has been heard. The idea that “guns don’t kill people, people kill people” is accurate and therefore it’s not the “gun” we want evaluated, it’s the person who holds it. I cannot imagine the most ardent “rights” advocate not minding a criminal living next to them with a score to settle AND a gun within their procession. Unfortunately within our society we are ‘reactive’ not ‘proactive’. Every regulation, law or amendment has not been because someone ‘might’ hurt someone or something ‘wrong’ needs to be rectified…It’s because someone ‘was’ hurt and something indeed needed to be rectified.

 

[JonNC]

No rights are absolute.

So, what are reasonable exceptions to
Due process?
Presumption of innocence?
Cruel and unusual punishment?
Your religious liberty ( and don’t say human sacrifice because that impacts the rights of another)?

The rhetoric of some underground mechanism that longs to stifle the responsible gun owner into relinquishing his gun is absurd and every slogan has been heard.

It isn’t underground. Listen to Feinstein and Pelosi.
Clinton spoke of the Australian confiscation model in glowing terms.

The idea that “guns don’t kill people, people kill people” is accurate and therefore it’s not the “gun” we want evaluated, it’s the person who holds it. I cannot imagine the most ardent “rights” advocate not minding a criminal living next to them with a score to settle AND a gun within their procession.

A criminal, convicted in a court of law, who loses his right to arms is not an exception to the right. Neither is a minor. When I speak of absolute, I am speaking of the fact that it is absolutely actight , inherent and antecedent to the state.

Unfortunately within our society we are ‘reactive’ not ‘proactive’.

The NICS is a proactive measure, designed to prevent those who have sacrificed their right by their actions, or those adjudicated mentally unfit. Otherwise, presumption of innocence and due process means law enforcement is reactive.

 

[jfz178]

The NICS is a proactive measure, designed to prevent those who have sacrificed their right by their actions, or those adjudicated mentally unfit.

NICS is a mess, though. The GAO has reported that BAFTE is keeping a database of NICS data, which is against the law. If people want universal background checks, they will need gun owner support or it will never pass. If they want gun owner support, we need to scrap NICS and replace it with something like the BIDS system. It does everything NICS does just as well, but protects privacy and prevents anyone from keeping illegal secret databases.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Otherwise, presumption of innocence and due process means law enforcement is reactive.

There are plenty of laws that are proactive. Gun control applied to law abiding citizens would by no means be the first. Other examples are:

1. City building fire codes for houses establish standards that restrict your freedom to build any way you like. Instead of punishing you after you start a fire that endangers your house and the houses of your neighbors, these laws make it less likely that your house will go up in flames, You may say “I’m really very careful. I know how to avoid starting a fire.” But you will be restricted proactively anyway.
2. If a person were to assemble a collection of materials, including radioactive materials, that would enable that person to build a dirty bomb in his basement, he would be in violation of dozens of proactive anti-terrorist laws, even before he built the bomb. Presumption of innocence on the bomb building charge would be irrelevant because the act of acquiring those restricted materials would be the violation. Of course there is not constitutionally protected right to keep are bear enriched uranium, but the point is this is a proactive law designed to stop someone before he hurts anyone.

So the presumption of innocence does not rule out proactive laws.